re-call and reassessment of bill of entry

[MANOHARAN ARUMUGAM]

As TR-6 challan is not a prescrined document, I want to pay the differential customs duty by recall and reassessing the bill of entry.  However, customs officials declined to re-assess.  Please suggest any case laws in this regard.

[YAGAY andSUN]

• Your refusal by customs authority to reassess the Bill of Entry despite absence of statutory prescription for TR-6 challan payment is contrary to the statutory scheme. The department ought to reassess under Section 149 or Section 154, as upheld in Dimension Data India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs & Anr. (2021 (1) TMI 1042 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT) and TThe Alleppey Company Ltd. v. Union of India - 2024 (4) TMI 446 - KERALA HIGH COURT cases.

• CESTAT in Commissioner of Customs v. Rajhans Enterprises - 2023 (12) TMI 264 - CESTAT BANGALORE - — after the Tribunal’s express direction to reassess – found the department illegal in ignoring that direction, holding that self-assessment cannot be barred from reassessment where Tribunal mandates it.

• The Supreme Court in Canon India Pvt. Ltd. decision (2024 (11) TMI 391 - Supreme Court (LB) confirms that once re-assessment is properly undertaken and a speaking order issued, remedy is by appeal under Section 128, not rejection on grounds of appeal technicalities.

• It is also well settled in ITC Ltd. v. CCE, Kolkata-IV (2019 (9) TMI 802 - Supreme Court (LB)). that TR-6 challan is not a Customs-prescribed form for correcting differential duty; duty correction must be through reassessed Bill of Entry.

[YAGAY andSUN]

Following are judicial precedents directly on point regarding refusal to reassess a Bill of Entry for payment of differential customs duty in absence of a prescribed document such as TR-6 challan:

1. Bombay High Court – Dimension Data India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs & Anr. (2021 (1) TMI 1042 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT)

The High Court held that reassessment of a Bill of Entry may be carried out under Section 149 or Section 154 in cases of clerical or inadvertent error, even after out-of-charge, and is not limited to Section 128 remedies alone. The word “mistake” under Section 154 has expansive meaning, covering errors of law or fact and not merely arithmetical errors. This decision clearly supports reassessment of a Bill of Entry where differential duty arises from an error or omission. 

2. CESTAT Bangalore – Commissioner of Customs v. Rajhans Enterprises - 2023 (12) TMI 264 - CESTAT BANGALORE (Final Order remanded dated 17 Oct 2017; final hearing 6 Dec 2023)

In this matter the Tribunal directed the adjudicating authority to first consider the application for reassessment of Bill of Entry before deciding refund claims. The department subsequently declined reassessment on the ground that self-assessment is an appealable order and needs to be challenged via appeal, thereby ignoring the Tribunal’s direction. The Tribunal rejected the department’s approach, noting that refusing to follow the remand direction to reassess amounted to reviewing the Tribunal’s order itself, which is impermissible. The appeal was rejected. 

[YAGAY andSUN]

Three more judgments for your kind perusal.

3. High Court of Kerala (The Alleppey Company Ltd. v. Union of India - 2024 (4) TMI 446 - KERALA HIGH COURT)

This High Court confirmed that reassessment under Section 128 is not the sole remedy; an order of assessment may also be modified under Sections 149 or 154 of the Customs Act. Any blanket denial of such powers is legally untenable.

4. Supreme Court – Canon India Pvt. Ltd. decision (2024 (11) TMI 391 - Supreme Court (LB)

The apex court confirmed that a reassessment followed by a speaking order is a pre-condition for lawful demand of differential duty, and appeal remedies under Section 128 can be availed thereafter. Further, only proper officers or authorised supervisors under Section 28(1)(b), or actions under Sections 149/154, are legitimate mechanisms to revisit assessments. 

5. Supreme Court in ITC Ltd. v. CCE, Kolkata-IV (2019 (9) TMI 802 - Supreme Court (LB))

Though relating more to refund, the decision firmly established that refund claims cannot be entertained unless the original assessment (or self-assessment) has been legally modified under Section 128 or other relevant statutory provisions. Reassessment under Section 27 alone does not permit resetting of assessments for refund purposes. 

[YAGAY andSUN]

Conclusion:

You are entitled to insist on reassessment of the Bill of Entry under Section 149 or Section 154, especially when TR-6 is not a prescribed document for such differential duty payment. Any refusal without a speaking order or invocation of statutory provisions is ultra vires. If the tribunal had issued a remand direction (as in Rajhans) which was not respected, that failure itself invalidates the departmental action. Subsequent remedy lies through appeal under Section 128 after reassessment.

[MANOHARAN ARUMUGAM]

Thanks to all the experts for a valuable guidance and case laws.

[KASTURI SETHI]

Also peruse the Madras High Court Judgment published on 4.6.25 in the case of Data Patterns India Ltd. - 2025 (6) TMI 735 - MADRAS HIGH COURT Stay granted to the party. 

[KASTURI SETHI]

TR-6 challan is sufficient proof of duty incidence borne by importer-------CESTAT Bombay in the case of VMS International P. Ltd. - 2025 (5) TMI 1038 - CESTAT MUMBAI

[MANOHARAN ARUMUGAM]

Dear Kasturi Sethi sir,

Thanks a lot for your valuable inputs and case laws. 

[Shilpi Jain]

Also have a look at Circular No. 16/2023-Cus. Though this is in the context of advance authorisation. But you could make a request for re-assessment stating that this is a fact acknowledged already by the Customs.

[MANOHARAN ARUMUGAM]

Thanks Madam,

On this basis of this circular only, I prepared a representation to be submitted to Commissioner of Customs for his intervention. Let me update to our members the outcome.

 

AI Summary

Reassessment under Sections 149 and 154 is mandatory before appeal under Section 128 for customs duty corrections A customs importer sought reassessment of a Bill of Entry to pay differential duty due to the non-prescribed nature of the TR-6 challan, which customs officials refused. Legal authorities affirm that reassessment under Sections 149 or 154 of the Customs Act is appropriate where errors or omissions arise, supported by High Courts, CESTAT, and Supreme Court rulings. Refusal without a speaking order or ignoring tribunal directions is ultra vires. The Supreme Court clarifies that reassessment must precede appeal under Section 128. Although some rulings recognize TR-6 as proof of duty payment, reassessment remains the proper corrective mechanism. Circulars support reassessment requests in acknowledged scenarios. The importer is advised to pursue reassessment based on statutory provisions and judicial precedents, with appeal remedies available after reassessment, and any departmental refusal may be challenged legally.